Skip to comments.
The saint who opposed Luther
Catholic Herald ^
| August 7, 2012
Posted on 08/07/2012 2:39:20 PM PDT by NYer
St Cajetan (1480-1547) was, like his contemporary Martin Luther, deeply concerned by the worldliness and decadence he saw among the clergy. He, however, sought to reform the Church from within, founding the Order of the Theatines.
This was the first congregation of regular clergy. Its aims were to preach sound doctrine, to tend the poor and the sick, to restore frequent use of the sacraments and to inspire better priestly conduct.
Born into the nobility of Vicenza as Gaetano dei Conti di Tiene, Cajetan lost his father at two. His mother brought him up to be both studious and devout.
After becoming a doctor in civil and canon law at Padua in 1504, he was protonotary to Pope Julius II in Rome from 1506 to 1513. Ordained in 1516, he returned to Vicenza two years later.
In Rome he had been associated with a group of zealous clergy styling themselves the Oratory of Divine Love. Back in Vicenza, he entered the Oratory of St Jerome and founded a hospital for incurables.
“In the Oratory,” he said, “we try to serve God by worship; in our hospital we may say that we actually find Him.” He went on to create hospitals in Verona and Venice.
Distressed by what he saw of the clergy, Cajetan returned to Rome in 1523 to confer with his friends in the Oratory of Divine Love. These included Pietro Carafa, Bishop of Chieti, a fiercely intransigent prelate who would be elected Pope Paul IV in 1555. With Carafa, Cajetan established in 1524 a new order, naming them the Theatines, after the Latin name for Chieti (Theate Marricinorum). There was particular emphasis on poverty and on thorough biblical training.
Carafa became the first superior-general, though Cajetan filled that office from 1530 to 1533. Perhaps due to Carafa’s uncompromising nature, the order did not immediately flourish. Moreover, it had to flee to Venice when the Emperor Charles V sacked Rome in 1527.
After 1533 Carafa sent Cajetan first to Verona, and then to Naples, where the Theatines gradually became respected for their stand against the city’s corruption and indifference to the poor. Cajetan established pawnshops which were run purely for the benefit of their users.
Among the Theatines at Naples from 1547 was the Englishman Thomas Goldwell, who had fled from Henry VIII’s regime. In 1555, under Queen Mary, he was appointed Bishop of Asaph, before once again being obliged to leave England under Queen Elizabeth. From 1561 Goldwell was briefly superior-general at Naples. He would live to be the last survivor of Mary’s bishops.
For 250 years the Theatines flourished in western Europe, as well as conducting foreign missions. In the 19th century, however, they fell into decline. In 2005 they numbered only some 200 religious, mainly in Spain and South America.
TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-190 next last
To: DManA
He must have really been laughing at the Council of Trent, then.
41
posted on
08/07/2012 6:19:17 PM PDT
by
Secret Agent Man
(I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
To: Persevero
Nonsense. You are quoting a screed put together by David Cloud if I remember correctly. The usual source for this nonsense is a website that is banned here at FR. I guess that is why you didn't cite a source. Here's an answer from a Catholic priest. An anti-Catholic critic claimed knowing middle-aged ex-Catholics who were not encouraged to read God’s Word. I asked a priest in his mid-60′s and he said he never heard such a thing; indeed, a special indulgence was granted to anyone who faithfully read the bible on a daily basis. Pope Benedict XV wrote in his encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus of 1920: “A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful who, with the veneration due the divine Word, make a spiritual reading from the Sacred Scriptures. A plenary indulgence is granted if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour.” My late aunt admitted that she was hesitant to read the bible for fear of misinterpreting the texts; however, such a personal sentiment cannot be said to reflect a Catholic prohibition. Anti-Catholic apologists themselves use isolated bits-and-pieces to refute Catholic teachings and then accuse the Church of using the same flawed methods. Such just is not the case. An anti-Catholic author, David Cloud, furthered such distortions in an article entitled, “The KJV and the Latin Vulgate.” He writes: [beginning of Cloud's quote] The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: “That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary.” Rome’s attempt to keep the Bible from men has continued to recent times. Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) denounced the Bible Society and expressed shock at the circulation of the Scriptures. Pius VII said, “It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit.” Pope Leo XII called the Protestant Bible the “Gospel of the Devil” in an encyclical letter of 1824. Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed “against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue.” Pope Leo XII, in January 1850, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has “long been condemned by the holy chair.” [end of Cloud's quote] Let us look at his assertions. First, did the council of Trent really prohibit the reading and ownership of the bible? The answer is, no. The council fathers decreed on April 8, 1546, “. . . the synod, following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testament, –seeing that one God is the author of both, . . . .” Oddly, I could not find the quotation as given by the above author; however, I did find decrees regarding UNAPPROVED and or FAULTY translations of the Scrtiptures. Just as with theological works, the Church asserted her role over their legitimate use. To suggest that the council of Trent opposed the authentic Word of God is untrue. Second, the prohibition for Catholics in joining Bible Societies was due to the fact that these said groups did not use Scriptures approved by Church sources and were quite anti-Catholic in their approach. Such has been the continued problem with gullible Catholics stolen from Christ’s Church by anti-Catholic fundamentalist bible study programs, some which particularly target Catholics. Again, this was no disdain for the holy Scriptures, only for the malicious intent by which some men use them. Third, the concern about bible distribution was that Protestant bibles were being circulated which in missing texts and in footnotes often questioned and ridiculed Catholic teaching. Obviously, the Church preferred that Catholics read bibles which reflected the orthodox Catholic interpretation of the Word of God. The misuse of the Gospel against the Church established by Christ himself is as Pope Leo XII noted nothing less than satanic. Cloud’s interpretation of Church history, or tradition, is as cloudy as the anti-Catholic’s understanding of the Scriptures. Having attacked Christ’s Church, the anti-Catholic bigot who quoted Cloud on his website has the audacity to call the Catholic his “friend.” This hackneyed sign of affection was used several years ago by the pornography and prostitute addicted Jimmy Swaggert in a pamphlet to proslytize Catholics. The anti-Catholic critic, when he runs out of material, will often harp about the so-called multitude killed by Catholics and declared heretics. It is true that civil societies in the past did engage in much nonsense, both Catholic and Protestant, however, both camps equated spiritual murder with physical murder and subsequently confused the penalties. Neither Protestants nor Catholics would want to be classified by the actions of extremists. Returning to the subject of the bible, it is my supposition that if properly studied with care to the sources and the literary forms of the text, it will affirm the Catholic faith. Such an openness to the truth of the Scriptures have led many of the more astute Protestants into the Catholic Church. However, the more emotional, embittered, and ignorant the researcher– the less affected they are by such truths or the claims of the Catholic Church. The message of our loving God to such critics would be to put aside their prejudice and hatred and taste and see the goodness of the Lord in the Catholic community. http://fatherjoe.wordpress.com/instructions/debates/anti-catholicism/did-the-catholic-church-prohibit-bible-reading/ Almost every Protestant anti-Catholic I have ever dealt with online has either been dishonest or relied (wittingly or unwittingly) on dishonest sources. I can only conclude from this that Protestants in general, or anti-Catholics in particular, enjoy lying or are simply grossly ignorant.
To: what's up
Actually it did answer the question put to me. Whether or not it satisfies the person asking the question is irrelevant.
To: vladimir998
I don’t even know who David Cloud is.
The info I got, when I searched Bing for the source, was Wikipedia.
The Council of Trent is not hard to find - I quoted it.
It is a matter of history that Luther was summoned to the Diet of Worms by the Roman Catholics in charge, charged with heresy, excommunicated, declared an outlaw. How can you deny that?
It is better if you acknowledge the errors that the RC church has committed over the years, rather than pretend they don’t exist. And certainly, rejoice in all that the church has done right. I am happy to admit to errors when I see them in a Protestant church. Only God is perfect.
44
posted on
08/07/2012 7:28:51 PM PDT
by
Persevero
(Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
To: vladimir998
Actually it did answer the question put to me. An answer with no information is a trite answer.
To: Persevero
**It is true. The RC church forbade its people to read the Bible.
“The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books,**
Source please! This is nonsense.
Bibles were copied by hand in those days. That’s why there was only one Bible in a Church — usually chained to the ambo or the pulpit.
I have never come across people saying that Catholics were forbidden to read the Bible.
46
posted on
08/07/2012 7:39:23 PM PDT
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: OKSooner
47
posted on
08/07/2012 7:42:26 PM PDT
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: vladimir998
To: vladimir998
Great article.
I had to post the link. What is wrong here? We used to have paragraphs with just a double return.
Yikes. Guess JR better buy him some new servers pretty soon.
To: Persevero
Are you believing those anti-Catholic tracts again?
Here is the truth: (Please read the entire article.)
Did the Catholic Church forbid Bible reading?
Did the Catholic Church forbid Bible reading?
(1) History - Why didn't people in the middle ages read the Bible?
This section was researched by Art Sippo, Fr. Terry Donahue and Mark Bonocore
The Bible was on scrolls and parchments during the early centuries of Christianity. No one had a "Bible". Even into the Middle Ages, each Bible was written by hand. Most people were, at best, only functionally literate. That is partially why they used stained glass windows and art to tell the Bible story. The printing press was not invented until 1436 by Johann Gutenberg. Note: The Gutenberg Bible, like every Bible before it, contained the Deuterocanonical books - the "extra" books as they are called in Evangelical circles.
So prior to 1436, the idea of everybody having a Bible was out of the question, even if they could read. Yeah, I know it's hard to imagine a world without photocopiers, printing presses, email, and web sites - but hey look at the bright side - no SPAM!
After the invention of the press, prior to Luther's Bible being published in German, there had been over 20 versions of the whole Bible translated into the various German dialects (High and Low) by Catholics. Similarly, there were several vernacular versions of the Bible published in other languages both before and after the Reformation. The Church did condemn certain vernacular translations because of what it felt were bad translations and anti-Catholic notes. (vernacular means native to a region or country)
The Catholic Douay-Rheims version of the whole Bible in English was translated from the Latin Vulgate. It was completed in 1610, one year before the King James Version was published. The New Testament had been published in 1582 and was one of the sources used by the KJV translators. The Old Testament was completed in 1610.
The Latin Vulgate was always available to anyone who wanted to read it without restriction. Some Evangelicals have said that it would only have been usable by people who read Latin. But in the 16th Century there were no public schools and literacy was not that common, especially among the peasants. Those people who could read had been well educated and could read Latin.
I got an email that said:
The Church still had its readings and services in the dead language of Latin ...The Church fought to keep the Bible in Latin even though it could not be understood by most people of the time.
Mark Bonocore responds:
Latin was far from a dead language. It was the language of theology and science (the language of all educated peoples throughout Europe and beyond) well into the 17th and 18th Centuries. For example, when Isaac Newton published his works on physics, he published them in Latin so that all of Europe could read them. The same was true of all other scientific and scholarly advances.
The reason that the Protestant reformers used vernacular languages was because a) most educated people did not take the reformers seriously and b) they used the masses to get power for their movement. The pamphlets published by Luther and Calvin were filled with all manner of crude and dirty language (lots of references to "shitting," "pissing," and "farting"), and this was done to capture the imagination of the common man and to create popular uprising against the social establishment.
The Bible could very much be understood by people with the intelligence and ability to understand its theological content -- most of whom spoke Latin. Most common people of the time, however, could understand neither the language nor the content ...and most common people are still clueless about the content of the Bible today ...which is why Protestants supply "ministers" to interpret it for them.
We should also remember that the Jews had always kept their Bible in the Hebrew until the 19th Century. The Greek versions of the Jewish Bible made in ancient times had been co-opted by the Christians so the Jews basically abandoned them. Any Jew who wanted the read the Bible was expected to make the effort to learn Hebrew.
Some Evangelicals have accused the Catholics of burning people for reading the Bible. Mark Bonocore responds:
We must be careful not to project modern, American sensibilities (in regard to freedom and justice) into the context of medieval history. In the Middle Ages and before 1776, there was simply no such thing as separation of Church and State ---not in Catholic countries OR in Protestant countries. If we "burned people for reading the Bible," then the Protestants burned people for praying in Latin or hearing the Catholic Mass (something they unquestionably did in England, Geneva, and Scandinavia, etc.). At this time in history, heresy was also a secular crime; and the powers of a particular country treated it as such ... Despite the "spin" that some Evangelicals put on the Catholic position, the Catholic Church was never opposed people reading the Bible. What it opposed was people reading interpretations the Bible apart from the teaching authority of the Church, which would lead to the kinds of problems we have today with 30,000 denominations interpreting Scripture differently. The Bible itself warns against this. (2 Peter 1:20). With the invention of printing, there was a communications explosion, and one suddenly saw lots of people making very poor and heretical translations of the Bible and popularizing them throughout Christendom...The Church tried to stop this.
The common people of the middle ages had no intellectual defense with which they could make a reasonable judgment about the Truth. They were almost as vulnerable to the heresies that were sweeping through their communities as a person standing in front of a gun today. Except a lot more than their lives was at stake, their eternal lives were in jeopardy. Today, if someone went out into the street and started shooting people, we wouldn't say, "let him go ahead and do it, people can protect themselves...its there own fault if they are shot to death." The Church was very worried that people who were influenced by these heresies were going to spend eternity in hell. No one was punished for simply believing a heresy. The crime was teaching it, and leading others astray. The Church felt it was their job to protect the souls of the innocent. In hindsight, we see that we would have done better by not using force.
Some Evangelicals accuse the Catholic Church of "Chaining Bibles". The Church DID chain Bibles in the Middle Ages; and for the same reason that the Telephone Company chains its directories to the booth -- to prevent people from STEALING them. They were chained so that everyone could read it, in the congregation. Today even Telepone books are chained to telephones so they don't "walk" away.
We must remember that each Bible had to be copied by hand and that it took many years of a monk working behind the walls of a monestary, called a scriptorium to do this. Each Bible was made on vellum (sheep hide), it took 250 sheep and 1000's of hours to make every Bible. ccording to standards today, each one of these Bibles would be worth about $100,000. Records have been compiled which show that there were 5,000 chained books in 11 Protestant and 2 Catholic libraries. The Reformers, likewise, chained their Bibles in their churches for at least 300 years. Therefore, Catholics were not alone in chaining Bibles.
(2) Bible reading earlier this Century
I did not grow up Catholic but I've interviewed dozens of older Catholics, and ex Catholics, including those who now go to Evangelical Churches, to try to gain an understanding of the charge that Catholics weren't allowed to read their Bibles in the 1930's - 1970's.
It is true that earlier in this century, in some Catholic circles, people were not encouraged to read their Bibles. This discouragement was a mistake. The Church does not claim that these types of mistakes have not been made. Catholics believe that although the teaching of the Church is "infallible" on matters of doctrine, the Church is not "indefectable." Sometimes God chooses people who fall. He has done that since the beginning of the Church. (i.e., Judas)
It was never forbidden to read the Bible. But some priests were worried that congregations would come up with dozens of conflicting interpretations of Scripture. These priests knew of over 300 Protestant denominations who had distinct beliefs about the interpretation of Scripture. Many of these interpretations conflicted with each other yet every one of them claimed divine inspiration. As a whole, neither Catholics or Evangelicals are into relativism (which says there are many truths). So we have to conclude that the vast majority of conflicting Evangelical biblical interpretations are incorrect since only one can be true. (Perhaps this is a powerful argument against Sola Scriptura - Bible alone.) Some priests saw this divisional process in Protestant circles and felt it was a danger.
Eleanor, an elderly lady in our Church, explained to me that Catholics went to Catholic school. That was in the day when they really were religious based schools. They had religion class for 40 minutes every morning which taught the basics of the faith, including many articles based on Scripture and Latin. (those who think Jesus is about "Relation" not "Religion" may want to go here) The Evangelical counterpart to this was once a week of Sunday School. Eleanor loved the nuns who were her teachers. Eleanor's mother went to Church every morning at 6 am. Even though the Mass was in Latin, the Bible readings were in English. As mentioned above, there were four readings at every Mass. Most families had a family Bible although it is true they favoured hearing the Bible reading during Mass where there would be a homily explaining the readings. Joan, a lady in our church said this:
...in grade 6 or 7 all the students in our class were given the New Testament and encouraged to read it every day. The teacher (a nun) started us with the Acts of the Apostles and I remember becoming soooo excited...and I still get that way! ...I do remember being told by my grade one teacher...to listen well to the Bible readings at Mass on Sunday because that was Jesus talking to us...My grandmother used to quote Scripture to her neighbors...She heard it at church or from the priests and remembered it...and used it!
(3) What's it like today? Do Catholics read the Bible?
Today, Catholics who are faithful to the teaching of the Church are totally into the Word. The level of education is higher than it has ever been and people are better able to comprehend its meaning. The New American Bible has a preface from the Vatican that regular private Scripture study is a blessing (an indulgence is received) to all Catholics who crack open the Word. I love digging into the Word with my Evangelical friends. And hey, my Bible was not copied out by hand. Thank God for the printing press.
Notes:
(1) http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/matt/mt15_1.htm
(2) Father Mateo at www.cin.org
(3) Evangelical and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission, edited by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus, Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995, Neuhaus' chapter, "The Catholic Difference," 175-227; quote from 209-210
Lord Jesus, let Your prayer of unity for Christians
become a reality, in Your way
we have absolute confidence
that you can bring your people together
we give you absolute permission to move. Amen
50
posted on
08/07/2012 8:05:14 PM PDT
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: Persevero; Religion Moderator
“The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: “That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary.”If you are going to cut and paste from an anti-Catholic website you ought to at least have the integrity to admit and cite it.
Once you have done that you should then do a fact check because what you posted is a lie (note: I am not accusing you of lying, only of passing lies along).
Some 300 years earlier, in response to the Albigensian heresy the local councils of Toulouse (1229 AD) and Tarragona (1234 AD) banned possession of unauthorized heretical versions of the bible.
Peace be with you
51
posted on
08/07/2012 8:10:04 PM PDT
by
Natural Law
(Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
To: NYer
Martin Jeroboam Luther - Leader of the 10 Lost Tribes of Protestantism.
God bless St. Cajetan and all those who fought for Christ’s Church!
52
posted on
08/07/2012 8:13:34 PM PDT
by
AnneM62
To: Persevero
To: Persevero
What is the source for those quotes?
To: Persevero
Hey, I suspect most mainstream Protestants reject the heretical Scofield Bible. How bout that new Jimmy Carter Bible? Do you recommend that to your friends? Or is it on your ban list?
This is what the Catholic Church was facing in banning certain editions of the bible in their blatant heresies. They needed to keep the truth in tact.
55
posted on
08/07/2012 8:42:51 PM PDT
by
AnneM62
To: AnneM62
"This is what the Catholic Church was facing in banning certain editions of the bible in their blatant heresies."Those Protestants complaining about the Church banning heretical Bibles should have no problem with members of their congregations reading and espousing doctrines from the Book of Mormon or the Watchtower.
Peace be with you
56
posted on
08/07/2012 8:51:37 PM PDT
by
Natural Law
(Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
To: Religion Moderator
“What is the source for those quotes?”
Wikipedia, and the Council of Trent.
I searched Bing “did the Roman Catholic church excommunicate Luther,” and that’s what I got.
However, I have read bios of Luther, read articles about Luther, read “Here I Stand,” even watched the Ralph Fiennes movie “Luther,” (not authoritative, I know!) and there seems to be no argument against the historical truth the Luther was both excommunicated by the RC church and threatened with death.
So to complain that he didn’t stay in the RC Church is pretty blatantly unfair to him. He hardly had the choice.
57
posted on
08/08/2012 12:17:54 AM PDT
by
Persevero
(Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
To: Natural Law; Religion Moderator
“If you are going to cut and paste from an anti-Catholic website you ought to at least have the integrity to admit and cite it.”
I did not visit an anti-Catholic website.
People joke about Wiki, but it was sourced and cited and I had no reason to believe it was false.
I have even seen posters at my public library, “Banned Books,” and the Bible has been listed on them as banned by the RC church. I’m not making it up. Of course I was not present personally, who of us could have been, but my sources seem credible.
To the RC church’s credit, they haven’t banned it for a long time, so, good for them.
But we might note that reformers like Wycliffe were burned at the stake for translating it into the common language (English). This was a terrible policy and a terrible occurrence.
58
posted on
08/08/2012 12:21:41 AM PDT
by
Persevero
(Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
To: Salvation
“Are you believing those anti-Catholic tracts again?”
I didn’t read or cite any anti-Catholic tracts.
Here’s some more about those killed for translating/distributing Bibles. This time from the blurb for PBS’s Battle for the Bible from their Secrets of the Dead series.
“Today, speakers of English take for granted many phrases from the King James Bible — from “let there be light” to the word “scapegoat” — that were the work of an intrepid 16th-century translator who met not with acclaim but with years of exile, and eventually lost his life.
But this translator, William Tyndale — who was burned at the stake on October 6, 1536 — was no lone renegade. Rather, he was a pivotal transitional figure, his work a step toward bringing direct experience of the Bible to a reading public.
The film BATTLE FOR THE BIBLE explores the lives and lasting influence of three major figures in the translation and propagation of the English Bible: the 14th-century theologian, politician, and reformer John Wycliffe; Tyndale; and Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry VIII and advisor to the king through the period that saw the split with Rome and the creation of the Anglican Church.
The translation of the Bible into the vulgar — the language of everyday people — was a key element in the series of reforms within the Catholic Church that eventually resulted in what we know as the Protestant Reformation.
In the 14th century, the Roman Catholic Church was Western Europe’s undisputed religious authority; and its central rituals — the Mass and Communion — the only legitimate pathway to salvation. The pope and the clergy held enormous power, and secular authorities looked to the Church for legitimation. Key to the Church’s power was the fact that its rituals were conducted in Latin, a language inaccessible to the uneducated faithful. The public was completely dependent on the priesthood for access to salvation — only through mysterious rituals conducted in an unfamiliar tongue could they conduct their spiritual lives.
John Wycliffe, born around 1320, was a prominent theologian at Oxford University and a leading ecclesiastical politician in the dark period of English history following the decimation of Europe’s population by the Black Plague. He became convinced through his own scholarship that Scripture itself, rather than the Mass, should be seen as the source of Christian authority.
Wycliffe’s notion that the Bible should be translated into the common tongue for the edification of all believers was a radical innovation, and one that spawned a movement. Working outside of the Church, translators eventually produced perhaps hundreds of so-called “Wycliffe Bibles,” translated and hand-copied from the Latin. It is not clear that Wycliffe himself produced any translations into English, so they are more properly known as “Wycliffite” Bibles.
With or without Wycliffe’s active involvement, the English Bible became part of an underground movement that became known as Lollardy and continued to spread after Wycliffe’s death in 1384. It worried Church authorities enough that by 1407 the English translation was denounced as unauthorized, and translating or using translated Bibles was defined as heresy — a crime for which the punishment was death by burning. In 1415 Wycliffe himself was denounced, posthumously, as a heretic. His body was exhumed and burned in 1428. Wycliffite Bibles, even after the ban, were produced in great numbers, and the 250 or so that now remain are the largest surviving body of medieval English texts. But the time was not yet right for the Bible to exist publicly in the common tongue. “
I do not condemn current R. Catholics for this, but I do condemn the re-writing of history. Just admit the R.Catholic church had a horrible problem, but has since repented on the issue (I am assuming it has), rather than pretending it did not happen.
59
posted on
08/08/2012 12:27:09 AM PDT
by
Persevero
(Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
To: Religion Moderator; Persevero
What is the source for those quotes? The translations of writers, also ecclesiastical, which have till now been edited by condemned authors, are permitted provided they contain nothing contrary to sound doctrine. Translations of the books of the Old Testament may in the judgment of the bishop be permitted to learned and pious men only, provided such translations are used only as elucidations of the Vulgate Edition for the understanding of the Holy Scriptures and not as the sound text. Translations of the New Testament made by authors of the first class of this list shall be permitted to no one, since great danger and little usefulness usually results to readers from their perusal. But if with such translations as are permitted or with the Vulgate Edition some annotations are circulated, these may also, after the suspected passages have been expunged by the theological faculty of some Catholic university or by the general inquisition, be permitted to those to whom the translations are permitted. Under these circumstances the entire volume of the Sacred Books, which is commonly called the or parts of it, may be permitted to pious and learned men. From the Bibles of Isidore Clarius of Brescia, however, the preface and introduction are to be removed, and no one shall regard its text as the text of the Vulgate Edition.
Some Catholic college out of New York...
60
posted on
08/08/2012 12:41:22 AM PDT
by
Iscool
(You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-190 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson